Talk:Ron (CTU)
Status Should we really list this guy as deceased? In all likliehood, he was, but we're never given a body to identify. If we were given the body of the guy mowing the lawn, I wouldn't ask, but since we only get Daniels and his partner dead, and never see the body of the guy mowing the lawn, we should change his status to unknown. This is similar to other characters, like Mitchell, Lawrence, and Ray. If no clear enough evidence is given that they're dead, they should be unknown. --ASHPD24 16:46, March 5, 2011 (UTC) : We don't have to see bodies in many cases. Tony reported to George in the next episode that the agents protecting Kim & Teri were all dead. (Findings at CTU attempted to retcon Ted Paulson's situation and stated that he was found alive but died later, but nothing was mentioned about anyone else.) : As for Lawrence and Ray, Drake (Day 1) reported back to CTU that the MUDD staff were all killed, so that was the necessary confirmation on those. I'm pretty sure there was a report or something that took Mitchell into account, too, but I don't remember specifically in his case, so you can look into it if you like. 17:08, March 5, 2011 (UTC) :: I see your point on the others, but there never was a confirmation for Mitchell other than he wasn't present at the time of the hit. He probably was killed, but no mention of all of the Felsted employees being dead is ever made. --ASHPD24 17:13, March 5, 2011 (UTC) I agree that the guy is deceased, as it was stated all the agents were killed. However I don't see why he is an unidentifiable character instead of a mentioned one - we have no evidence that he was one of the 3 agents seen at the safehouse. The only info we get about how many extra agents were sent is that they sent "two more teams", and the maths doesn't add up that 3 people can constitute 2 teams. Therefore there were definitely agents at the safehouse that audience didn't see, any of them could have been Ron. So surely he should be a mentioned character. Any objections?--Acer4666 19:55, July 14, 2011 (UTC) : Despite Jack telling Nina two more teams were on the way, after getting back to CTU Nina only mentions Paulson & Breeher and the extra extra security team. So maybe they had to re-allocate agents elsewhere and only the three on-screen guys made it to the safe house. But even if there were other characters unseen, I think it's a stretch to say that Paulson could've been calling to any of them. He saw the abandoned mower and began walking through the house calling for "Ron." Near as I can tell, he must've been calling to either Breeher (who was also stationed in the house) or the mower agent. Cerasini forgot that we already got Breeher's first name, so he made the wrong choice. As far as I'm concerned, the only possibility that makes sense is for Ron to be the mowing agent. --proudhug 03:43, July 24, 2011 (UTC) Well I guess it boils down to whether the chain of events state Ron to definitely be the mower guy. If they don't, then we don't have any evidence to state there weren't other unseen agents, even any other agents stationed in the house, so I guess he should just be a mentioned character. To me, if you describe the chain of events in text, it clearly implies that Ron is the lawnmower guy. But watching the way it's acted, it seems less of a "oh Ron's not on his mower, he's probably off having a wee inside let's call him" and more of a "oh shit mower man's disappeared, I better go and see if Ron is still alive too!". But that's just my interpretation of the events haha, it's just the feeling I get from the scene, if you ask me the writers/director/actor maybe forgot they'd called Breeher "Jeff" earlier and played it as if he was calling Breeher. I dno--Acer4666 10:07, July 24, 2011 (UTC) : My gut reaction, and all my later considered reactions, to that scene is that Ron is the lawnmower guy. Since Jeff is Breeher's name IU, then Breeher can't be Ron. And it's too much of an extrapolation to assume the possibility that Paulson would call one of the trucker agents when all of them have radios and he sees the lawnmower agent missing, it really just doesn't add up. I put that note there back then to play it safe, but we're thinking too hard about this. Paulson, upon seeing the lawnmower guy absent from his post, simply radioed him. 19:59, July 24, 2011 (UTC) ::I think a BGIN at most. Nina mentioning only one team doesn't confirm that there were only 3 people on the team - there could have been any number of other agents we didn't see, one of which could have been Ron who was stationed inside the house (ie not a "trucker agent")--Acer4666 21:49, July 24, 2011 (UTC) : Assuming there were more than we saw is... an assumption, speculation. We did not have any "possible extra unseen people" speculation in the process of elimination when Proudhug and I identified Phil Tuttle, and we shouldn't do it in this case either. 03:57, July 25, 2011 (UTC) ::Read your Bob Jorgensen talk: "Ames tells Palmer that he just left a meeting with Carl, Phil Tuttle, and Bob Jorgensen. This is a total of four, which precludes the possibility that there were unseen others.". When do we ever get something which precludes the possibility of others in this case? ::In fact, we get the opposite - there have to be others, because of Jack's "sending two teams" line - as I said, 3 people cannot constitute 2 teams, and Nina referring to all the other agents as 1 team doesn't change that fact - There had to be 4 or more agents. Proudhug above says that perhaps one team got rerouted and never made it there etc., but that's speculation.--Acer4666 08:15, July 25, 2011 (UTC) ::: Proudhug's post back in July really did it for me. That throwaway line from Jack to Nina in the prior episode about "teams" was superseded by the line from Nina "the extra security team is in place". It really is an assumption to say there were unseen agents, and, given that Proudhug and I had the same interpretation of Paulson calling for Ron, I'm still convinced he logically had to be calling for the lawnmower guy. 07:02, November 16, 2011 (UTC) Jack's line is a lot less "throwaway" than Nina's - "we're sending two more teams" as opposed to the "and the extra team is in place". But biased phrasing aside, one line does not supersede the other when they can both feasibly be true. We only assume continuity errors/retcons if there is no reasonable IU explanation. you can have two teams of (at least) two people each, also referred to as a team of (at least) four. That fits, makes sense, and there were at least four people there, based on iu evidence (not an assumption). You cannot have three people referred to as two teams - so you're assuming Jack was lying/a continuity error, based on what the camera sees which is not conclusive evidence at all.--Acer4666 (talk) 15:52, November 16, 2011 (UTC) : Eh, I'm really just unable to buy this. We have one throwaway line being canceled by another (no I don't understand why two different groups would be referred to suddenly as 1, CTU is supposed to be very technical and specific about their operations) and we have only 3 new faces on film (Daniels, trucker, mower) in two different scenes very specifically being shown. Throughout the entire episode there is no reason at all given to think anyone else was present but unseen. 18:23, November 16, 2011 (UTC) ::You seem to be responding to my logical arguments with your personal opinion. "Throughout the entire episode there is no reason at all given to think anyone else was present but unseen." - yes there is, Jack's line saying two teams were sent. How "throwaway" you perceive the line to be doesn't change the fact it was said. The number of extras/stuntmen the 24 crew managed to get on the day does not have a bearing on iu events and dialogue. I don't see why there is so much resistance to this - remember Achmed? I could say "there's no reason given in the ontario airport scenes that there are unseen terrorists", yet we stuck him as a mentioned character. Why the double standard?--Acer4666 (talk) 23:44, November 16, 2011 (UTC) : No opinions on my side :) Also, you misread; that comment of mine which you quoted was episode-specific: Jack's line was from the prior episode (2pm). During the episode in question itself (3pm), when all this took place, a superseding line was made by Nina and only a single team is mentioned. And it being the case that the showrunners took a good deal of pride showing off the cool undercover agents one by one, there's no compelling evidence to assume the throwaway line from the prior episode still holds against the different, more recent throwaway line from the current episode. : Achmed is entirely different because we both agreed that a different transport absolutely must have brought more separatists. 05:47, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ::Since when do we treat episodes as single entities and ignore info from one affecting the other? That's like saying "throughout Day 1: 8:00am-9:00am, we get no indication that Jamey Farrell was murdered". ::And the Achmed situation is identical. One transport brought Beresch's terrorists - then a separate (unseen) transport brought more. The showrunners were very careful (?) to show us the extra terrorists brought by the unseen transport. No reason to assume more than what we saw, apparently? In this, One transport brought Paulson and Breeher, then a separate (unseen) transport brought more, which the showrunners showed us. Where is the difference?--Acer4666 (Talk:Acer4666|talk]]) 10:40, November 17, 2011 (UTC) We don't treat episodes as single entities, of course. That is not the case here. What is the case is that, when a comment from a prior episode is superseded by a line in next episode (which is the one in question), then you go with the superseding comment. Especially when footage from the episode in question supports the second line. And the difference with Achmed is enormous, for many different reasons. It's genuinely difficult to list them all. However with the Day 1 scenario in question here, the teams arrived at different times. In Day 5 it's not clear or important when the guys who were not in Beresch's van arrived. Breeher and Paulson were first, and I think they walked in together and were introduced personally. Then, the second transport(s) arrived off-screen. We see their three faces in the establishing scene, and their three fates are clear in the next scenes. Daniels, the driver, and the mower are the only new ones shown. Daniels, the driver, and the mower are the only new ones whose fates are accounted for. Therefore there is no reason given iu to say there was anyone else, especially since the line in the prior episode which could allow one to argue such a thing was superseded. 00:53, November 18, 2011 (UTC) :The lines do not "supersede" one another - they are not contradictory. I dunno how many more times I can state this, without any logical argument against it. But the two lines taken together, unambiguously imply 4 people (as I have stated previously, but you have ignored my arguments). And of course, you have not provided any significant iu difference between Achmed and this situation, other than what the camera saw (which is oou). :How do you account for this - read the page for Scott (Day 1). He arrived at CTU with Nina, and apparently came from the safe house with her. Yet the camera did not see him. ( But hang on - he was never seen at the safe house! how could such a thing occur? Could it be be that their were people present at the safe house that the camera never saw? Surely not! Or...maybe there were.)--Acer4666 (talk) 03:16, November 18, 2011 (UTC) To me, they are contradictory lines for the same reasons explained earlier. I'm not convinced that 2 teams get transformed into 1 simply because they arrive at the same place. (Especially when they are later referred to as 1 and you see only three faces. To me the explanation is self-evident.) And Scott was already gone by the time we see the assault underway at the safe house, so it isn't a surprise to me that he wasn't seen or featured there. All that is just supporting evidence when I return to my original point, and Proudhug's too: when Paulson sees the abandoned mower, he radios for Ron. It's simply unbelievable that he'd be radioing for anyone else. To me it is just odd anyone would interpret it to mean otherwise. The stuff you have proffered thus far just isn't persuading me that Ron is not the lawnmower, I don't know what else to say? I feel like you're taking this disagreement personally. I'm always open for more details but as it stands, I still strongly agree with Proudhug that he must be Ron. 22:54, November 18, 2011 (UTC) :I can only apologise for the last post - I assure you I'm not taking anything personally, I unfortunately just ranted when drunk and am sorry for that. I'll happily leave this issue for now - can defer to what you decide. I will say that Paulson doesn't actually radio for Ron, he shouts into the back rooms of the house, which is what makes me think Ron isn't the lawnmower guy, but as I say it's your call.--Acer4666 (talk) 02:26, November 21, 2011 (UTC) No worries at all. We might want to consider leaving it as it is for now, which is a neutral ground between my assertion that Ron is the lawnmower and your assertion that he is merely mentioned. I must have forgotten about him shouting, not radioing; the thing about that detail is we know Breeher's first name and there's no reason for the truck agents to be inside the house. Given that the logic Proudhug and I espouse precludes there being other agents (whereas yours does not), our deduction is that Paulson must have been calling for the lawnmower after all. (He wouldn't break cover if he went inside to use the bathroom, landscapers do it all the time.) I suppose it's best to wait for more opinions before doing anything at the moment. 22:42, November 21, 2011 (UTC)